BoxRec

Ossyrules wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Out of curiosity, what sports are better now than they have ever been? Ok F the ones I watch I'd say men's tennis. Granted it's led by a bunch of older guys, but the depth is crazy. Nfl,nba,mlb & boxing have all seen better days. Golf & mma are debatable.

I follow tennis. Nadal is my guy. But my old man won't believe rhs any modern guy have the beating of bjorn Borg. It's difficult with many sports due to advances in equipment for one.

Usain bolt aside athletics standard is quite low in my opinion.

I think Nadal is better than Borg at everything. Though the rackets are like different sports so it's tough to compare. What isn't is the depth.

Almost all the advances in athletic performance are related to equipment.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

Ossyrules wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Out of curiosity, what sports are better now than they have ever been? Ok F the ones I watch I'd say men's tennis. Granted it's led by a bunch of older guys, but the depth is crazy. Nfl,nba,mlb & boxing have all seen better days. Golf & mma are debatable.

I follow tennis. Nadal is my guy. But my old man won't believe rhs any modern guy have the beating of bjorn Borg. It's difficult with many sports due to advances in equipment for one.

Usain bolt aside athletics standard is quite low in my opinion.

I think Nadal is better than Borg at everything. Though the rackets are like different sports so it's tough to compare. What isn't is the depth.

Yeah the men's game is solid easy to 100 and probably a bit beyond. Why you see what they'd call upsets where an unknown at about 120 dumping a top 20 top 10 player out a major

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

Ossyrules wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Out of curiosity, what sports are better now than they have ever been? Ok F the ones I watch I'd say men's tennis. Granted it's led by a bunch of older guys, but the depth is crazy. Nfl,nba,mlb & boxing have all seen better days. Golf & mma are debatable.

I follow tennis. Nadal is my guy. But my old man won't believe rhs any modern guy have the beating of bjorn Borg. It's difficult with many sports due to advances in equipment for one.

Usain bolt aside athletics standard is quite low in my opinion.

I think Nadal is better than Borg at everything. Though the rackets are like different sports so it's tough to compare. What isn't is the depth.

I'd bet if you measured the stuff like distance ran/average speed of runs etc Nadal and Murray and Djokovic would be well ahead of the Borg era.

I think tennis players with the amount of short bursts and quick changes of direction plus full torque of the hips every time they make a shot, are the fittest sportsmen in the world in some senses. And their schedules are insane too. I mean I'm stating the obvious here I guess but those dude are made of iron. And probably special vitamins.

Counter-puncher wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

Ossyrules wrote:
I follow tennis. Nadal is my guy. But my old man won't believe rhs any modern guy have the beating of bjorn Borg. It's difficult with many sports due to advances in equipment for one.

Usain bolt aside athletics standard is quite low in my opinion.

I think Nadal is better than Borg at everything. Though the rackets are like different sports so it's tough to compare. What isn't is the depth.

I'd bet if you measured the stuff like distance ran/average speed of runs etc Nadal and Murray and Djokovic would be well ahead of the Borg era.

I think tennis players with the amount of short bursts and quick changes of direction plus full torque of the hips every time they make a shot, are the fittest sportsmen in the world in some senses. And their schedules are insane too. I mean I'm stating the obvious here I guess but those dude are made of iron. And probably special vitamins.

Yeah they are crazy fit. I'll always remember Aus Open 2009. Nadal played 5hr semi final, federer cruised straight sets in his. Someone nadal was able to compete in the final the next day and live with federers energy levels despite the easy run federer had. Nadal won in 5 in another 5 hr epic, with federer being the one to buckle physically in the 5th. Epic fitness.

He shared the same doctors as the Spanish cyclists and footballers I imagine

Counter-puncher wrote:He shared the same doctors as the Spanish cyclists and footballers I imagine

Odd how so many insanely fit Spanish sportsmen came through at the same time, isn't it

Boxerbeetle wrote:

Counter-puncher wrote:He shared the same doctors as the Spanish cyclists and footballers I imagine

Odd how so many insanely fit Spanish sportsmen came through at the same time, isn't it

Yes, 'odd'

jamesmcdonnell wrote:Almost all the advances in athletic performance are related to equipment.

Tell that to the fools on here who talk about 'evolution'

Tomasino wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote:Almost all the advances in athletic performance are related to equipment.

Tell that to the fools on here who talk about 'evolution'

Theres an excellent article on the subject showing the spikes in 100 meter times and new technologies and also incteases in the number of competitors.

I don't believe that there's a single player in top-level tennis who hasn't cycled. Certain players have histories of recurring ‘retirements’ to maximise their gains away from testing.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

Tomasino wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote:Almost all the advances in athletic performance are related to equipment.

Tell that to the fools on here who talk about 'evolution'

Theres an excellent article on the subject showing the spikes in 100 meter times and new technologies and also incteases in the number of competitors.

It's obvious that's what it is, drugs, financial motivation, equipment more people from all over the world doing it.. You know your up against it with someone when they bring up evolution as a reason why athletes are better now than ever. It's believed to be the opposite by scientific studies. We've gotten gradually weaker since farming began.

Short version: Boxing is more dependent on innate abilities than conditioning compared to most other sports, and there used to be a much larger and more experienced talent pool, so arguably the old-timers were better fighters, but it depends on how much the improvements afforded by modern training outweigh having a smaller pool of less experienced boxers.

Long version: Whilst I have no doubt that modern boxers are assisted by modern conditioning, nutrition and magic vitamins, there are a great many elements that go into a world-class boxer that are not improved by conditioning, e.g. chin, heart, reflexes, timing, balance, coordination, the ability to read and predict an opponent's tactics and strategy, calm under pressure. Some of these might be improved with good training (e.g. many ex-Soviet bloc fighters have wonderful balance and rigorously trained fundamentals), but there is no obvious reason a fighter from the 1940s couldn't have these abilities to the same level as a fighter from 2017. Willie Pep, for example, would be as much of a nightmare to hit if he was around now as he was at his peak over 70 years ago.

What is common to these abilities is that they are, to a very large degree, innate. I could have trained eight hours a day from the age of 3 with the best trainers and the best nutrition and the odds are good I would still never develop Floyd Mayweather's reflexes or balance or ability to see openings or any of his other innate qualities. Better conditioning will not make any difference (except, perhaps, towards the very end of a fight) and better training will only go so far. Essentially these abilities are discovered in a boxer, not developed.

Given that many of these abilities cannot be learned and others can only be developed to a certain degree, the only way to produce more boxers with those abilities at a high level is to a) have more boxers and b) make them fight each other to work out whose are best. And that is exactly what happened in previous eras: there were far more boxers and they fought much more often. Probability dictates that that environment would have produced top-level boxers with a higher level of innate ability: they were the cream of a far larger and more experienced crop than exists today.

Does that mean, necessarily, that previous eras of boxers were better? That depends on two things: 1) how important conditioning is to success in boxing; and 2) whether modern training methods are better for those abilities which don't depend on conditioning but can be improved (balance, coordination etc) to the point where they outweigh the effect of having a smaller and less experienced talent pool than in previous eras.

On the first point, clearly in some sports conditioning is everything. Rugby teams of twenty years ago wouldn't stand a chance against teams of today outweighing them by at least two stone per player, tennis players can run all day and hit far harder than they used to, etc. A mediocre athlete transported back in time from today's era would have been an excellent one in a previous era in those sports. But boxers at the top level win and lose fights because of other abilities that can't be learned. Carl Froch without his chin and heart would have struggled to get past domestic level; Mayweather without his balance and reflexes would be Adrien Broner.

The second point is less clear (not least because I don't know enough about how technique training has changed over time). The huge advances in swimming and cycling show that refinement of technique can be just as important to performance in modern sport as superior conditioning. It would be a surprise if modern trainers and modern equipment haven't improved boxers' technique to some degree; certainly the masses of well-schooled Cubans and ex-Soviet boxers emerging in the pro ranks in the last 20 years would suggest that there has been refinement. But does that outweigh the effect of a smaller number of boxers having a smaller number of fights against a shallower pool of talented opponents?

Probably a subject for someone's dissertation rather than my ill-informed ramblings and guesswork. But I'd be interested to hear what trainers think. Just so long as they don't tell me it's evolution.

Tomasino wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

Tomasino wrote:

Tell that to the fools on here who talk about 'evolution'

Theres an excellent article on the subject showing the spikes in 100 meter times and new technologies and also incteases in the number of competitors.

It's obvious that's what it is, drugs, financial motivation, equipment more people from all over the world doing it.. You know your up against it with someone when they bring up evolution as a reason why athletes are better now than ever. It's believed to be the opposite by scientific studies. We've gotten gradually weaker since farming began.

Theres quite a bit of evidence to suggest home neanderthalis would have been vastly physically superior to our species, yet they died out, so the evolution theory is deeply flawed. Ive read a few studies that suggest that jessie owens with modern apikes, blocks and rubberised tracks geared to produce fast times would have been very much on a par with even bolt, who is a real outlier.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

Tomasino wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote:
Theres an excellent article on the subject showing the spikes in 100 meter times and new technologies and also incteases in the number of competitors.

It's obvious that's what it is, drugs, financial motivation, equipment more people from all over the world doing it.. You know your up against it with someone when they bring up evolution as a reason why athletes are better now than ever. It's believed to be the opposite by scientific studies. We've gotten gradually weaker since farming began.

Theres quite a bit of evidence to suggest home neanderthalis would have been vastly physically superior to our species, yet they died out, so the evolution theory is deeply flawed. Ive read a few studies that suggest that jessie owens with modern apikes, blocks and rubberised tracks geared to produce fast times would have been very much on a par with even bolt, who is a real outlier.

When we were hunter gatherers, we had 30% greater bone density. It's gradually weakened over the millennia, which is consistent with evolutionary theory. Imagine if 50 years is all it took for species to 'evolve'

Michael Johnsons been quoted many times saying that's it's drugs and equipment that is breaking records.

dookus wrote:And that is exactly what happened in previous eras: there were far more boxers and they fought much more often. Probability dictates that that environment would have produced top-level boxers with a higher level of innate ability: they were the cream of a far larger and more experienced crop than exists today.

And yet a lot of modern fans write most of them off for their occasional losses. It stands to reason that if you're fighting every three weeks, sooner or later, you're just going to have an off day, be it due to tiredness, injury, illness, or even mood.

It's a catch-22 where you're probably not quite as good as you could be without losing, but downrated for not having a perfect record. Avenged losses are the real measure. It used to be common to fight a few rivals multiple times.

Grilling Machine wrote:

dookus wrote:And that is exactly what happened in previous eras: there were far more boxers and they fought much more often. Probability dictates that that environment would have produced top-level boxers with a higher level of innate ability: they were the cream of a far larger and more experienced crop than exists today.

And yet a lot of modern fans write most of them off for their occasional losses. It stands to reason that if you're fighting every three weeks, sooner or later, you're just going to have an off day, be it due to tiredness, injury, illness, or even mood.

It's a catch-22 where you're probably not quite as good as you could be without losing, but downrated for not having a perfect record. Avenged losses are the real measure. It used to be common to fight a few rivals multiple times.

Especially when the opponents records were often incomplete, and there was no tapes of them - add in the fact that they would have been fighting carrying injuries pretty much all the time, due to the hectic schedules, and lack of time to heal - hardly surprising.

I'd love to have seen Mayweather compile a ledger like Robinson's before his first loss, fighting that often.

Tomasino wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

Tomasino wrote:

It's obvious that's what it is, drugs, financial motivation, equipment more people from all over the world doing it.. You know your up against it with someone when they bring up evolution as a reason why athletes are better now than ever. It's believed to be the opposite by scientific studies. We've gotten gradually weaker since farming began.

Theres quite a bit of evidence to suggest home neanderthalis would have been vastly physically superior to our species, yet they died out, so the evolution theory is deeply flawed. Ive read a few studies that suggest that jessie owens with modern apikes, blocks and rubberised tracks geared to produce fast times would have been very much on a par with even bolt, who is a real outlier.

When we were hunter gatherers, we had 30% greater bone density. It's gradually weakened over the millennia, which is consistent with evolutionary theory. Imagine if 50 years is all it took for species to 'evolve'

Michael Johnsons been quoted many times saying that's it's drugs and equipment that is breaking records.

Yes, compared to the average human no doubt - I'd imagine their bone density would have been very similar to modern athletes. Bone density responds in direct correlation to weight bearing and muscle use.

I mean, you look at tribes where they are still hunter gatherers, and you have guys in their 70's still out on the hunt, a lifetime of moving does that for you, if you live long enough.

I read a recent article, which stated that in fact human longevity has increased very little, it's only the lower incidence of childhood death that gives that impression. Well fed and healthy humans could expect to live into their 70's and 80's even in ancient greece and rome. It's just that infant mortality was so high by comparison, due to routine childhood infections.

Tomasino wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

Tomasino wrote:

It's obvious that's what it is, drugs, financial motivation, equipment more people from all over the world doing it.. You know your up against it with someone when they bring up evolution as a reason why athletes are better now than ever. It's believed to be the opposite by scientific studies. We've gotten gradually weaker since farming began.

Theres quite a bit of evidence to suggest home neanderthalis would have been vastly physically superior to our species, yet they died out, so the evolution theory is deeply flawed. Ive read a few studies that suggest that jessie owens with modern apikes, blocks and rubberised tracks geared to produce fast times would have been very much on a par with even bolt, who is a real outlier.

When we were hunter gatherers, we had 30% greater bone density. It's gradually weakened over the millennia, which is consistent with evolutionary theory. Imagine if 50 years is all it took for species to 'evolve'

Michael Johnsons been quoted many times saying that's it's drugs and equipment that is breaking records.

I trust Johnson. He was the one guy who had a totally different running style - he had a short choppy stride and ridiculous leg turnover speed.

I suspect Bolt is clean too, he has a ridiculous stride length, and his leg turnover for his height is insane.

I suspect we will see a lot more very tall 100 meter runners, now that the theory of the perfect build for 100 meter runners has been overturned.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

Ossyrules wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Out of curiosity, what sports are better now than they have ever been? Ok F the ones I watch I'd say men's tennis. Granted it's led by a bunch of older guys, but the depth is crazy. Nfl,nba,mlb & boxing have all seen better days. Golf & mma are debatable.

I follow tennis. Nadal is my guy. But my old man won't believe rhs any modern guy have the beating of bjorn Borg. It's difficult with many sports due to advances in equipment for one.

Usain bolt aside athletics standard is quite low in my opinion.

I think Nadal is better than Borg at everything. Though the rackets are like different sports so it's tough to compare. What isn't is the depth.

Borg has a resting heart rate of 45, the lowest ever recorded for a tennis player. He was supremely fit, and amazingly strong mentally and tactically.

He would have played different tennis with modern rackets, because of the very different string tension, and dampening effects of modern rackets, which allow players to hit the ball so much harder, and with way more spin. I would assume he would have adapted a different style.

It's unfair to compare different eras and ignore the effects of the equipment.

The one big difference between Nadal's era and Borg's, and the most critical one, is the level and amount of competition. I'd guess there are 10 times as many professionals in the game now as then, and that makes HUGE differences in levels of performance, particularly in highly technical events like tennis.

exactly I always compare Golf, 300 odd yard drives, do that with Older Golf balls and clubs... and if they really want to compare the present to the past, well then make the wholes longer to allow for the advancement in equipment, evening it out a bit, then see how much 'under' par they regularly are.

anyone ever see that documentary where the Big American Triathlete went to try compete with the Mountain Sherpa's, lean thin little guys, they absolutely blew him away with the load bearing treks and that was long before reaching higher altitudes they were more used too. he couldn't successfully get that high with the work demands.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:Almost all the advances in athletic performance are related to equipment.

Some certainly are - but most advances are due to better knowledge of how to train, coupled with building/improving on what previous generations achieved.

There are many sports where improving results can't just be put down to better equipment.
In gymnastics, for example, if you could go back 60 years in time, and bring with you film of what the sport looks today... the trainers back then wouldn't believe their own eyes. The sport has changed that much!
Same with swimming! If people 60 years ago had been told, that the best women in 2017 would out-swim every male swimmer back then by a considerable margin - would they have believed it?
In weightlifting, not a single Olympic record set before 2000 is still standing. This certainly can't be put down to better equipment.

Just like with everything else, in sports we build on the knowledge of those that came before us, and try to better ourselves all the time.
Not that I believe, we have as much success with this in boxing, as can be seen in most other sports! Sure, if you go WAY back (pre-WW1), we can see a huge difference. But over the past 60-70 years, not so much... if at all!

Bundana wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote:Almost all the advances in athletic performance are related to equipment.

Some certainly are - but most advances are due to better knowledge of how to train, coupled with building/improving on what previous generations achieved.

mention vitamins. please mention the special vitamins.

Counter-puncher wrote:

Bundana wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote:Almost all the advances in athletic performance are related to equipment.

Some certainly are - but most advances are due to better knowledge of how to train, coupled with building/improving on what previous generations achieved.

mention vitamins. please mention the special vitamins.

With weightlifters & swimmers? Not likely.

Bundana wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote:Almost all the advances in athletic performance are related to equipment.

Some certainly are - but most advances are due to better knowledge of how to train, coupled with building/improving on what previous generations achieved.

There are many sports where improving results can't just be put down to better equipment.
In gymnastics, for example, if you could go back 60 years in time, and bring with you film of what the sport looks today... the trainers back then wouldn't believe their own eyes. The sport has changed that much!
Same with swimming! If people 60 years ago had been told, that the best women in 2017 would out-swim every male swimmer back then by a considerable margin - would they have believed it?
In weightlifting, not a single Olympic record set before 2000 is still standing. This certainly can't be put down to better equipment.

Just like with everything else, in sports we build on the knowledge of those that came before us, and try to better ourselves all the time.
Not that I believe, we have as much success with this in boxing, as can be seen in most other sports! Sure, if you go WAY back (pre-WW1), we can see a huge difference. But over the past 60-70 years, not so much... if at all!

Swimming is a perfect example in fact, modern pool design, and the swimsuits they wear have had a dramatic effect on times.